• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JREF Challenge Statistics

I'm not on trial to answer your questions.

I suggest you try a more productive approach.

It is my opinion your offer is not genuine.

And it is a fact that it doesn't interest me.

O....K.

Could you explain to us what a more productive approach would be?

How can we persuade you that our offers are genuine?

What, exactly, are you interested in discussing?

(Could someone re-post these questions? T'ai Chi pretends to have me on ignore. A couple of times should do it.)
 
So, again, why do you assume I did not calculate what you are demanding? And why do you think what you think I calculated or not matters to proposing the idea of seeing interesting data?
Are you now claiming that you do have the % of female applicants? Why could you not simply have said 'I have this number', rather than going round the houses trying to avoid answering my question about why you didn't work this out for yourself?

You originally said:
What % of the applicants have been female? Interesting question. Seems unnecessarily difficult to get a numeric answer.

*seems*, not *seemed*

Use of the present tense indicates you were trying and failing to determine this number. Have you worked this number out between then and now? Why didn't you say so?

So, TaiChi
1) Do you have the % of female applicants?
2) If not, why have you not worked it out from the information available?

You're currently playing a game of 'guess what numbers I have'. Why don't you just tell us?

Oh, yes, because you're just trying to be argumentative.
 
I'm not on trial to answer your questions.

I suggest you try a more productive approach.

It is my opinion your offer is not genuine.

And it is a fact that it doesn't interest me.

O....K.

Could you explain to us what a more productive approach would be?

How can we persuade you that our offers are genuine?

What, exactly, are you interested in discussing?

(Could someone re-post these questions? T'ai Chi pretends to have me on ignore. A couple of times should do it.)
*sigh*
 
It is my opinion your offer is not genuine.
That's the nice thing about opinions. They don't have to have any relation to reality.
And it is a fact that it doesn't interest me.
Just curious: is there anything at all that you will go on record as actually being interested in? Enough, say, to actually engage in 2-way conversation about it, giving your own opinions as well as soliciting and reacting to those of others? Just curious...
 
I'm not on trial to answer your questions.

I suggest you try a more productive approach.
But I asked so nicely.

All I'm doing is asking you for the same type of information that you are asking the JREF to provide. You want the JREF to compile all of this data for you, and yet you won't do the same thing when asked. How is this any different?
 
I'm not interested in every single test, only the ones that are statistical in nature, and not just JREF, but any skeptical organization that does similar tests.

Surely, if there are tests that are statistical in nature, on dowsing, it seems reasonable to look into the possibility of combining their data. And if not appropriate, then no biggie, don't do it. But seeing the data, and calculating descriptive statistics are what is important.

I'm prepared to quote a hard statistic to you, Justin. Are you prepared to receive it?
 
I'm prepared to quote a hard statistic to you, Justin. Are you prepared to receive it?

Justin has posted in four different threads since I posted this message, but has not posted here again. I wonder why that is.
 
Justin has posted in four different threads since I posted this message, but has not posted here again. I wonder why that is.

"Gr8wight",

Perhaps because I'm not hanging on your every word like you apparently are on mine?
 
<snip>
You've mentioned that already, but you still haven't shown that. If you are interested in other hypothetical data sets, then you are warmly encouraged to do some work and examine those. For those that want to examine data from tests from skeptical organizations, then examining data from tests from skeptical organizations is the way to go, Mercy.
So have you begun to collate the 18 months worth of 141 applications to the JREF Challenge in order to get an idea of the type of data you are proposing would be interesting to analyse?
 
"Gr8wight",

You are free to post anything you'd like, as you've always been.

You're the one who started this thread claiming an interest in statistics about the JREF and other paranormal challenges. Now you feign disinterest in the only hard statistic that can confidently be quoted for the JREF challenge. What, exactly is your position, Justin? Do you want to take a stab at what that statistic is?
 
Now you feign disinterest in the only hard statistic that can confidently be quoted for the JREF challenge.
Engage Pedantic Mode:
Technically, you want "uninterest" rather than "disinterest" there.
Pedantic Mode disengaged.

;)
 
Engage Pedantic Mode:
Technically, you want "uninterest" rather than "disinterest" there.
Pedantic Mode disengaged.

;)

Dear SixSixSix,

Thank you for your comment. I had to think about it for a minute, but I understand why the distinction is important. Justin is feigning uninterest. But then again, his beginning was nothing more than feigned interest. Justin is a big, big troll.

Of course, I already knew that. I'm not sure why I continued posting here after I discovered that T'ai Chi was really Justin employing a new, sock-puppet identity. Oh, I remember. I wanted to make sure that everyone else reading the thread was clear that T'ai Chi was really the well known troll Justin employing a new sock-puppet identity.
 
If you get a chance, check out the movie "Wilt". It's a 80s or 90s British comedy starring Mel Smith and Griff Rhys Jones (of "Alas Smith and Jones" fame, if you guys get British comedy series over there); there's a line in the movie that makes clear the difference between disinterest and uninterest.

I was of course being needlessly pedantic, and it wasn't as if what you were saying was unclear. Kiless hates me for correcting her on things like that; possibly I should take that to heart. ;)
 
It has now been five days since Justin last posted in this thread. A thread that he started, and in which he has averaged more than ten posts per page over the 9 pages. Justin, who seemed so interested in a statistical analysis of JREF challenge tests suddenly seems not to want to hear me quote the one piece of hard data that does cover all the tests ever conducted, regardless of their nature. What are you hiding from, Justin?

It's really too bad, isn't it, Justin, that with Kramer gone, and Randi away from the office, there aren't any new claims to discuss. Which means there aren't any new threads being posted to this forum. Which means this thread, which you seem to be so embarrassed about, just won't get pushed off the front page, darn it all!

See you tomorrow, Justin.
 
I'm not on trial here. Your demands are ignored.

If you aren't willing to think how test results relate more to science than Kramer's emails, I cannot help you.
So have you even attempted to review the Challenge entry emails to determine if you CAN derive any interesting statistics from them?

You've stated that you would find this interesting, yet you've not even posed how, or indeed if, you'd go about it.

Since you're the one who seems to think these statistics are "cool", why have you not investigated further and shared your investigation with the forum.
 

Back
Top Bottom